NASAGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Project: Reporting to General Service Administration that the property on Santa Susana FieldLaboratory is excess to NASA

Description and location of proposed action: NASA has conducted research, development,and testing of liquid-propelled rocket engines at SSFL under the Boeing Company, RocketdynePropulsion & Power (Rocketdyne) since 1948. On August 2, 2005, Pratt & Whitney purchasedRocketdyne from Boeing, but refused to acquire SSFL as part of the sale. As a result of thepurchase, NASA’s test operations at SSFL have been discontinued and the property is excess.NASA has ended engine testing operations at SSFL and followed internal screening procedures toensure that no NASA program or project could utilize the NASA-owned property on SSFL. Afterensuring that NASA has no use for NASA-owned property on SSFL, NASA proposes that GSAdispose of the excess property the property by sending a Report of Excess Real and RelatedPersonal Property (SF118) to the regional GSA office.

See attached Environmental Analysis and Report of Excess Real and Related Personal Property(SF1 18) for further information.

A. Anticipated date and/or duration of proposed action: FY 2008

B. It has been determined that the above action (choose one):

a. _____ Is adequately covered in an existing EA , EIS , entitled

_______________________________________________ and dated ______________

b. — Qualifies for Categorical Exclusion as described by NPR 8580.1 and NASA NEPARegulations 14 CFR 1216.305, and has no special circumstances which would suggest aneed for an Environmental Assessment.

c. _____ Is exempt from NEPA requirements under the provisions of (cite supersedinglaw): ______________________________________________

d. X Has no environmental impact as indicated by the results of an EnvironmentalAnalysis Checklist and/or a detailed Environmental Analysis (attach Checklist and/orEnvironmental Analysis as applicable).

e. _____ Will require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

f. _____ Will include mitigation as described below:

Other Environmental Consideration (i.e. permits, hazardous material handling): Seeattachments. An Environmental Review was prepared to document baseline conditions.Reporting of NASA-owned real property at SSFL to GSA contemplates no significant change in theexisting use of the land. NASA will continue RCRA cleanup activities. NASA will lead NaturalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) effort, with GSA coordinating.

Signed: Date: ii 7Manager, Environmental Engineering and Occupational Health Office (EEOH)

NEPA Preliminary Evaluation

Project Name: Reporting to General Service Administration that the property on Santa Susana FieldLaboratory is excess to NASA

n New Construction NIA - ModificationProject Contact(s): Allen Elliott, NASAIMSFC 256-544-0662 Donna

Holland NASAIMSFC 256-544-7201

Project Description: NASA has ended engine testing operations at SSFL and followed internal screeningprocedures to ensure that no NASA program or project could utilize the NASA-ownedproperty on SSFL. After ensuring that NASA has no use for NASA-owned property onSSFL, NASA proposes that GSA dispose of the excess property the property bysending a Report of Excess Real and Related Personal Property (SF118) to thereg~al GSA office.~

OriginatorSignature: ~(/It//o7Phase Starts in FY: 2008

Construction Phase: No Yes Maybe Commentsa) Affects wetlands, floodplains, protected species or critical x — N/A - No construction is involved in thishabitat. property transfer

b) Have impacts to cultural or historical resources. X —

c) Impacts a CERCLA restricted site. X —

d) Potential to cause soil contamination. x —

e)Requires use or storage of toxic or hazardous materials. X —

t) Will generate hazardous, toxic or radiological wastes. —

g) Causes air pollution or have discharges to air. —

h) Requires new Clean Water Act permit or modification. x —

I) Causes water pollution or have water discharges. X —

j) Potential to impact quality of groundwater. X —

k) Requires use of groundwater. X —

I) Potential to violate safety, health or noise standards. X —

m) Requires use of radiation (ionizing or non-ionizing). X —

n) Requires use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. )( —

o) Uses Class I ozone-depleting substances. x —

p) Potential exposure to asbestos or lead containing materials. X —

q) Have transportation impacts (new roads, traffic, parking). ~

r) Significant increases in labor force. X

MSFC NEPA Checksheet.xls

NEPA Preliminary Evaluation

Project Name:

Project Contact(s):

Reporting to General Service Administration that the property on Santa Susana FieldLaboratory is excess to NASA

n New Construction NIA - ModificationAllen Elliott, NASAIMSFC 256-544-0662 DonnaHolland NASAIMSFC 256-544-7201

NASA has ended engine testing operations at SSFL and followed internal screeningprocedures to ensure that no NASA program or project could utilize the NASA-ownedproperty on SSFL. After ensuring that NASA has no use for NASA-owned property onSSFL, NASA proposes that GSA dispose of the excess property the property bysending a Report of Excess Real and Related Personal Property (SF118) to there~onaI GSA offi~e. / F) /

Project Description:

Operational Phase:

Originator Signature: ,(~IJ44J. ‘3( - Y._~44’—~t-’ t4 /‘ ~/ ô 7No Yes Maybe Comments

a) Potential to disproportionately impact low income or minority X —

populations.b) Affects wetlands, floodplains, protected species or critical ~habitat.

c) Have impacts to cultural or historical resources. X NASA proposes to lead Cultural ResourceManagement with GSA coordinating.

d) Impacts a CERCLA restricted site or RCRA site. — X RCRA clean up will continue under NASAmanagement pursuant to August 2007

e) Potential to cause soil contamination. x —

f) Requires use or storage of toxic or hazardous materials ~ —

(including propellants and explosives).

g) Will generate hazardous, toxic or radiological wastes. x

h) Causes air pollution or have discharges to air. —

i) Requires new air permit or Title V modification. X —

j) Causes water pollution or have water discharges. —

k) Requires new Clean Air Act permit or modification. X — Air permits for SSFL are issued to the BoeingCompany. Rocket testing operations wereremoved in 2007.

I) Significant increases in use of potable water. X —

m) Potential to impact quality of groundwater. X —

n) Requires use of groundwater. X —

o) Potential to violate safety, health or noise standards. —

p) Requires use of radiation (ionizing or non-ionizing). X —

q) Requires use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. —

r) Uses Class I ozone-depleting substances. X —

s) Potential exposure to asbestos or lead containing materials. ~ —

t) Significant increases in energy consumption. X —

u) Have transportation impacts (new roads, traffic, parking). x —

v) Significant increases in labor force. X —

w) Impacts community socio-economics.

MSFC NEPA Checksheet.xls

Environmental Review

Reporting to General Service Administrationthat the property on Santa Susana FieldLaboratory, California is excess to NASA

- -. -~i ~—‘ ~

;~ ~ ~a __

- ~ ~_; —~~:-

-p.- - -, — - —~ ‘.

-~ .~ - -- -~ ~- ..—~ 4 •~ ~r-t- ~ ‘I~i~_ / -

— ~ .- — a -~ — ,

~~ ~-“.

- ~ r _ -. - :• .• ~.-• - ~..•, • -•- - •~- ,, .)

‘-. i — -• (_.~ ~ ~ ~• ~- - - -~-

I N - I- ~ -‘ ~ - ,,- •~-,- -;~. • ,‘- — ~— —~-.-~

:; ~ ::~ -:

Prepared by

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMarshall Space Flight CenterHuntsville, Alabama

Environmental ReviewTransfer of NASA-Owned Property onSanta Susana Field Laboratory, California

Questions or comments may be directed to

Donna L. HollandEnvironmental EngineerMail Code AS1OMarshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812256—544—7201

or

Allen ElliottManager, Environmental Engineering DepartmentMail Code AS1OMarshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812256—544—0662

PrefaceEnvironmental Review Organization

This enviromnental review addresses Marshall Space Flight Center’s (MSFC) proposed action toreport to General Services Administration (GSA) that NASA-owned property on is excess.

Section 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action summarizes the purpose of and needfor the proposed action and discusses the scope of the document.

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives describes the proposed actionand the alternatives to the proposed action.

Section 3: Affected Environment describes the existing conditions of each resource for whichthe proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action are evaluated.

Section 4: References.

ContentsPreface, Environmental Analysis Organization iii1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 11.1 Background 11.2 Need for the Proposed Action 31.3 Purpose (Objectives) of the Proposed Action 31.4 Decisions to Be Made 31.5 Public Involvement 31.6 Environmental Regulations and Permits 31.6.1 CleanAirAct 31.6.2 Clean Water Act 41.6.3 Waste Connection Permit 51.6.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 51.6.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 51.6.6 Toxic Substances Control Act 61.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated From Further Analysis 62. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 82.1 Release of Property to GSA (Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative) 82.1.1 NASA-owned Real Property on SSFL 82.1.2 NASA-owned Personal Property on SSFL 92.2 No Action Scenario 92.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward 92.4 Further Actions in the Region 93. Affected Environment 103.1 Introduction 103.2 Local Community 103.2.1 Community Setting 103.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics 123.2.2.1 On-Site Land Use 123.2.2.2 Adjacent Land Use 143.3 Utilities 153.3.1 Water Supply 153.3.2 Wastewater 153.3.3 Solid Waste 163.4 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management 163.4.1 Known Contamination Sites 163.4.2 Hazardous Waste/Materials Management 193.4.3 Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, PCB ‘5 203.5 Soils 203.6 Water Resources 203.6.1 Surface Water 203.6.2 Groundwater 223.6.3 Floodplains 243.7 Biological Resources 243.7.1 Habitats/Vegetation 243.7.2 Wildlife 243.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 253.8 Cultural Resources 26

111

sa~uaaaja’>joi~6t4UOUIUOJIAU3papajj~FOT•St~~2~PSPUUtIflP0HOlEStsoamosUOTSSTUI3Y6~E12O4VW!QWU0!~O)JC6EU~UTUO~&iowinBa>jt~6E12aouangu~joUOT~O>j16ELi‘~1!PflO1!VWE91sasmonsispJ.WS~U!pJ!flfl0U0~S!H1S~E91~°°~°~°MW3T~0100tIP1V°!~°45!H~UEouO~STqa.IJJ~E

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

This Environmental Review (ER) examines the potential for environmental impacts as aresult of reporting to General Service Administration (GSA) that approximately 450 acres(182 hectares) of NASA-owned property on the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL),in Ventura County, California is excess. Due to a decrease in operations the property isin excess ofNational Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) needs.

NASA is required to analyze the environmental consequences of this action under NEPA,as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulationsfor Implementing the Procedural Provisions ofNEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508),and NASA’s regulations (14 CFR Part 1216 Subpart 1216.3). NASA is evaluatingpotential impacts resulting from reporting the excess property to GSA. GSA willevaluate potential impacts due to property disposal alternatives in a separate NEPAevaluation. This review has been prepared as a supplement to regulatory requirementsfor implementing NEPA.

1.1 Background

On April 29, 1985, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12512 (E.O. 12512)requiring all landholding Federal agencies to periodically review their real estateholdings. Federal agencies are further directed to identify property they do not need, usetoo little, or don’t use for the best purpose. Executive Order 12512 requires the GeneralServices Administration (GSA) to provide government-wide oversight and guidance forFederal property management. The proposed action is to reduce NASA’s real estateholdings by reporting excess property on Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) to GSAfor disposition.

The SSFL is a Government OwnedJContractor Operated (GO/CO) facility that occupies2,850 acres (1153 hectares) and is located approximately 29 miles Northwest of LosAngeles, CA, in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County as shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2below. The property is bounded by Canoga Park, in Los Angeles County on the east, BellCanyon on the south, the Brandels-Barden Institute on the north, and Semi Hills on west.The areas immediately surrounding SSFL are commercial and residential.

The site is divided into four areas (Areas Ito IV) and a buffer zone. Areas I, III, IV, andthe buffer zone are owned by Boeing. NASA owns 408 ac (165 ha) designated as Area IIand a 42-acre portion of Area I. This environmental review focuses on the reporting ofexcess NASA-owned areas of the SSFL.

The site has been active since 1948 and has included the research, development, andtesting of liquid-propelled rocket engines and associated components (pumps, valves,etc.) under the Boeing Company, Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power (Rocketdyne). OnAugust 2, 2005, Pratt & Whitney purchased Rocketdyne from Boeing, but refused toacquire SSFL as part of the sale. As a result of the purchase, NASA’s test operations atSSFL have been discontinued and the property is excess.

1

Figure 1-1. Santa Susana Field Laboratory Regional Map

~ ~

~~

~~ ~ ~

‘MitM~. • .j. ~SMMC ~ ~ ~ ~—- - -~

: -.~ ~. ‘_~—“‘~.~c’~

~ k1_!~ l~•~•’

~ ~• ~

L

-~,•-~v~• ~ ~::~

Tho#w,d •- . . •, .

~ ~ ~ ~~

~- L~~

Figure 1-2. Santa Susana Field Laboratory Local Map

Santa Su ana Fie d La. i ratoryLocal Map

Moo • Simi ~IIey 99 C?latswo . •

N Simi HillsAr.~V’ III C~~) keaI

Cana9a ~A Park ~ •ry • ...: •

Park p.~c ~‘ ~ :-~

Ui~deveIop.d LaidWoodla .., ..; ~•

Tousand -

Oaks Los ~ HIS ,-~

9

[Ir-I~

~ ~• ~

7 .~

—~ ‘~-

2

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action

NASA has ended engine testing operations at SSFL and followed internal screeningprocedures to ensure that no NASA program or project could utilize the NASA-ownedproperty on SSFL. After ensuring that NASA has no use for NASA-owned property onSSFL, NASA proposes that GSA dispose of the excess property the property by sendinga Report of Excess Real and Related Personal Property (SF118) to the regional GSAoffice.

1.3 Purpose (Objectives) of the Proposed Action

The purpose of requesting GSA to dispose ofNASA-owned property is to utilize assetmanagement principals, strategies, and techniques in determining how to best reutilizeNASA-owned property on SSFL.

1.4 Decisions to Be Made

The primary decision to be made by NASA, supported by the information presented inthis review, is whether to report excess NASA-own property on SSFL. This review iswritten to provide the NASA decision maker with information required to understand thepotential environmental consequences of the request to GSA to manage disposal ofNASA-owned Areas I and II at SSFL.

1.5 Public Involvement

This review does not include public involvement.

1.6 Environmental Regulations and PermitsNASA is listed as the owner of the property and Boeing as the operator on all permits atSSFL.

1.6.1 Clean Air Act

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District has issued two permits of operate (PTO) toThe Boeing Company. One has federally enforceable emission limits covering most ofthe SSFL sources (permit number PTO #232). This permit includes all ofNASAoperations for emission sources for all areas at SSFL; these sources are outlined in Table1-1 and lists only those that are currently permitted. In March 2006, all rocket enginetesting was completed. A permit modification was applied for in late 2006 to removerocket engine and component testing operations including Alfa, Bravo, and AdvancedPropulsion Test Facility, Systems Test Laboratory, and Hypergol Facility, an aerospacepaint spray booth, remote reservoir cold cleaners and cold cleaning tanks. The revisedpermit was granted in 2007.

Boeing also operates a second air permit for Laser and other laboratory operations. Thispermit, Number 00271, is for Boeing operations only and includes the solvent wipecleaning operations only.

Table 1-1 Air Permit for SSFL

Permit Scope Permit Effective DateNumber

Rocket Engine and Component Assembly 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008OperationsSolvent Cleaning Operations 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Surface Coating Operations (Spray Booth) 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Adhesive and Sealant Operations 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Portable Diesel Engines 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Emergency Diesel Engines 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Groundwater and Remediation Operations 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Gasoline Dispensing Facility 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Boilers and Heaters 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2008Solvent Wipe Cleaning Operations 00271 Jan. 1, 2007 —Dec. 31, 2008

Note: Ref. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 2007.

I .6.2 Clean Water Act

The SSFL fresh water system is a potable water system supplied by the Ventura CountyWaterworks District No. 17. Backflow prevention devices for the freshwater distributionsystem protect the domestic water supply. Bottled water is provided at SSFL for drinkingand other uses. An NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB) regulates the surface water discharges from SSFL (Boeing,2000; CH2M HILL, 2006b). There are 18 NPDES locations throughout SSFL at whichsurface water discharges are monitored regularly (Montgomery, Watson, Harza [MWH],2004).

The majority of surface water that is collected or drains from SSFL is intermittent and isconveyed offsite into one of four drainages (the Northwestern, Northern, Happy Valley,and Bell Creek drainages). Discharges generated from groundwater extraction activities(after treatment to discharge standards) enter the Bell Creek drainage located in thecentral portion of SSFL. The former engine testing activities also generated discharges ofwater (MWH, 2004).

1.6.3 Waste Connection Permit

Historically, waste discharges from the SSFL have been regulated since 1959. Wastedischarge requirements (WDR5) were issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB to regulatesewage and industrial waste discharge onsite (nonhazardous leach fields). There are nolonger any active leach fields at the SSFL, and the WDR permit was rescinded by theRWQCB in 1994. STPs are inactive (standby status) and all sanitary waste is disposed tothe municipal sewer system (MWH, 2004).

4

1.6.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act

SSFL is not listed as a CERCLA NPL site, but is involved with several RCRA correctiveaction projects.

1.6.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SSFL has a comprehensive environmental program under the jurisdiction of severalfederal, state, and county regulatory agencies. There are five environmental programs atSSFL that are being conducted under the authority of RCRA. In addition, other federal,state, and county environmental programs are being managed at the SSFL. Theseprograms are implemented to ensure that facility operations are conducted in anenvironmentally protective manner, and that investigation and cleanup are performed tomeet regulatory standards (MWH, 2004).

1.6.5.1 RCRA Programs

The five major RCRA environmental programs at SSFL are under the oversight andjurisdiction of the Cal-EPA DTSC. These programs include: 1) RCRA Corrective Action;2) Closure of inactive RCRA units; 3) compliance and permitting of RCRA units; 4)groundwater characterization and remediation; and 5) interim measures. Some of theseprograms overlap; however, there are separate guidelines and process requirements.Collectively, the programs described above provide a comprehensive basis for thehandling and cleanup of hazardous substances (MWH, 2004)

RCRA Corrective Action. This program includes the RFA, RFI, Corrective MeasuresStudy (CMS), and Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) phases. In 1992, theDTSC issued a Stipulated Enforcement Order that initiated the RCRA Corrective ActionProgram at the SSFL. Three Hazardous Waste Facility Permits were issued to Boeing byDTSC to provide specifications for the CAP. The permits govern the RCRA CAP at theSSFL and include: 1) the Areas I and III Post-closure Permit issued in 1995; 2) the AreaII Post-closure Permit issued in 1995; and 3) the Area IV Hazardous Waste ManagementFacility Operating Permit issued in 1993 (MWH, 2004).

Compliance and Permitting of RCRA Units. The permitting and compliance of activeand inactive RCRA-regulated units at SSFL are regulated by this program, whichincludes the storage areas and waste disposal practices. A Post-closure Permit forgroundwater treatment system operations in Area II has been issued by the DTSC foractive RCRA facilities at SSFL (MWH, 2004).

1.6.6 Toxic Substances Control Act

SSFL has implemented a program to replace or retrofihl PCB-transformers with non-PCBtransformers over time and to manage PCB-related wastes at SSFL. Currently, SSFL hasno PCB-containing transformers remaining that contain above 50-parts per million (ppm)

PCBs. A lead-based paint survey at SSFL has positively identified lead-based paint atnumerous buildings at SSFL (CH2M HILL, 2006a).

Several SSFL buildings contain asbestos. Construction projects that involve asbestosremoval are evaluated as they occur, and removal and disposal are performed per theapplicable state and federal requirements.

1.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated From FurtherAnalysis

NASA has used a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to ensure that all resourceswere analyzed and potential issues were identified. Table 1-2 identifies issues that weredetermined to have no impact and were eliminated from further discussion.

Table 1-2. Issues considered but eliminated from further analysis.

Element RationaleGeology Site preparations for the disposition of Areas I

& II would not extend below grade in eitherarea, and therefore, would not affect subsurfacegeological formations. Therefore, there are noimpacts to geology expected as a result of theproposed dispositions of SSFL at eitherproposed site.

Coastal Zone Management Program This resource is not present in the vicinity ofthe property, therefore there would be noimpact.

Coastal Barriers This resource is not present in the vicinity ofthe property, therefore there would be noimpact.

Wild and Scenic Rivers This resource is not present in the vicinity ofthe property, therefore there would be noimpact.

Protected Farmlands This resource is not present in the vicinity ofthe property, therefore there would be noimpact.

SocioeconomicsDemographics Disposition NASA-owned property at SSFL

would not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, the local populationwould not be impacted.

Income Disposition NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, income levels of the localpopulation would not be impacted.

Housing Disposition of NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, the housing demandswould not be impacted.

Schools Disposition of NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, there would be no impactto area schools.

Medical Facilities Disposition of NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, medical facilities wouldnot be impacted.

Security Disposition of NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, security resources wouldnot be impacted.

Fire Protection Disposition of NASA-owned property at SSFLwould not result in an increase or decrease inpersonnel; therefore, the fire protectionresources would not be impacted.

Infrastructure

Energy Energy consumption on the NASDA-ownedproperty at SSFL is minimal, therefore noimpacts to energy consumption are anticipateddue to the proposed actions.

TransportationRoadways Use of roadways at SSFL

2 Description of the Proposed Action andAlternatives

This chapter of the environmental review describes the proposed action andalternatives and summarizes the potential impacts associated with reportingexcess NASA-owned property at Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) to theGeneral Services Administration (GSA).

2.1 Release of Property to GSA (ProposedActionlPreferred Alternative)

As a result of Pratt/Whitney’s purchase of the Rocketdyne Engine Test Operations fromthe Boeing Corporation, operations at SSFL have been discontinued and the property isexcess to NASA.

In a coordinated series of actions for disposition of associated assets, all NASA-owned real and personal property at SSFL has been evaluated in accordancewith NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8800.15, Real Estate ManagementProgram Implementation Manual, and NPR 4300.1, NASA Personal ProperlyDisposal Procedural Requirements, to determine whether the property could bereutilized by another NASA program or project.

Upon validation that the property is no longer needed by NASA, the preferred alternativewould be to release the NASA-owned real and personal property at SSFL to the UnitedStates General Services Administration (GSA) for conveyance to other Federal, state,local, or private individuals.

2.1.1 NASA-owned Real Property on SSFL

The SSFL is located approximately 29 mi (47 km) northwest of downtown Los Angeles,California, in the southeast Simi Hills area of Ventura County. The SSFL occupiesapproximately 2,850 acres of hilly terrain and is divided into four areas (Areas Ito IV)and a Buffer Zone. Areas I, III, and the Buffer Zone are owned by Boeing. NASA owns408 ac (165 ha) designated as Area II and a 42-acre portion of Area I. All areas at SSFLare operated by the Boeing Company. A portion of Area IV is leased to the DOE. Thisenvironmental review focuses on the NASA-owned areas of SSFL.

The site has been active since 1948 and has included the research, development, andtesting of liquid-propelled rocket engines and associated components (pumps, valves,etc.). The rocket engine testing of the liquid-propelled engines was conducted in fourmajor test areas identified as Alfa, Bravo, Coca, and Delta. During the 1950s and 1960s,these test areas were in operation simultaneously. Other support areas with Area IIinclude fuel fanus, hydrogen compressor building, Propellant Load Facility (PLF),Service Area, and Storable Propellant Area.

Future land uses with current site conditions may restrict reuse activities to protect humanhealth and the environment. These conditions include potential contamination from pastreleases of hazardous substances and NASA’s efforts to remediate the contamination. TheNASA SSFL remediation activities and other environmental studies may result inlease/deed restrictions that limit reuse options at certain locations within the propertyboundaries. Additionally, NASA may retain access rights to these sites to implementremediation (i.e., a temporary easement for access to monitoring wells and remediationequipment).

2.1.2 NASA-owned Personal Property on SSFL

An ongoing survey is being conducted to evaluate all personal property at SSFL.

2.2 No Action Scenario

Under the No-Action Scenario, NASA would maintain the facilities in such a manner asto facilitate resumption of use in the future. The buildings and surrounding groundswould be maintained at minimum levels. Small quantities of hazardous materials wouldbe used during preventative and regular facility maintenance and grounds maintenanceactivities. Utility usage and vehicle trips would be minimal, requiring a maximum of twoemployees to care for the grounds. No improvements would be made to the facilities orinfrastructure.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward

SSFL was considered for use by other NASA programs and projects. The installationwas determined to be no longer necessary for NASA operations.

2.4 Further Actions in the Region

Further NASA actions in the region may include NASA’s efforts to remediate presentcontamination.

3. Affected EnvironmentThe Affected Environment section of this EA describes the existing environmentalresources of the area that may be affected by the proposed alternative, if it wereimplemented. Issues considered but eliminated from further analysis, identified inSection 1.7.

3.1 IntroductionSSFL is located approximately 29 miles northwest of Los Angeles, in the Simi Hills areaof Ventura County, California. The site has been active since 1948 and has included theresearch, development, and testing of liquid-propelled rocket engines and associatedcomponents (pumps, valves, etc.). The rocket engine testing of the liquid-propelledengines was conducted in four major test areas identified as Alfa, Bravo, Coca, and Delta.During the 1950s and 1960s, these test areas were in operation simultaneously. Othersupport areas with Area II include fuel farms, hydrogen compressor building, PropellantLoad Facility (PLF), Service Area, and Storable Propellant Area. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

3.2 Local CommunityThe SSFL is located in southeastern Ventura County in rugged terrain near the crest ofthe Simi Hills. The Simi Hills separate the Simi Valley from the western part of the SanFernando Valley. The facility occupies a plateau approximately 1,000 feet above the floorof the west San Fernando Valley and encompasses 2,850 acres (1,153 hectares) (DOE,2007).

3.2.1 Community Setting

The areas surrounding SSFL consist mostly of parks, open space, and private propertywith agricultural, residential, and recreational land uses. Approximately 70 percent of thearea within a 5-mile radius of the SSFL is undeveloped. No significant agricultural landuse, including prime or unique farmland, exists within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of thesite. Residential development is located about .75 mi (1.2 km) to the east of the SSFL onWoolsey Canyon Road and in areas about two miles north of the SSFL. Residential areaslocated .50 mi (.80 km) south of the SSFL are separated from active portions of the SSFLby an undeveloped buffer zone. There are no wild and scenic rivers on or near the SSFL(DTSC 2007).

The location of the SSFL site in relation to nearby communities is shown in Figure 3-1,and explained below.

Northern Adjacent PropertiesThere are two properties to the north of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). Theproperty located to the northwest is owned by the Brandeis-Bardin Institute. The propertylocated to the northeast is owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC)which preserves land for parks, open space, trails, and wildlife habitat.

10

Eastern Adjacent PropertiesThe properties to the east of the SSFL include open space and housing developments.Dense residential development begins in the San Fernando Valley about two miles east ofthe SSFL.

Southern Adjacent PropertiesThe Bell Canyon area is begins approximately 1.4 mi (2.3 km) to the southeast of theundeveloped area at SSFL and the primary use is residential development.

Western Adjacent PropertiesRunkle Canyon is located to the west of the SSFL and is designated by the VenturaCounty planning department as open space. This land is used for cattle grazing (DOE2007).

Figure 3-1. Region surrounding SSFL

Fom,q,Ah,~i~nion R~ncSiO~opom~ntPr~ec1

0

0 ~ 0

to

~-J

$ ml VatI-e.yBlock Can~~on

~

OaIWOr3 Und vetopod tond

o s~na Fi Laeor lwy

UoUovolopod Leod

Thou

.1

ChalswoflhResezvoit

Los A-ng

k

0

/

I

Hi~dden HillsL1-~

~ Calabasas

HN ~--.-.

Copyright © 2007, US Department of Energy, All Rights Reserved.

3.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics

3.2.2.1 On-Site Land Use

SSFL is divided into four areas (Areas I, II, III, and IV). These areas along with a bufferzone comprise approximately 2,850 ac (1,153 ha). NASA currently owns the 42-acreformer Liquid Oxygen Plant site in Area I. NASA also owns 410 acres in Area II onwhich are situated four rocket engine test stands. (NASA, 1998)

In 1948, North American Aviation acquired the land area now known as SSFL. TheSSFL site has been used primarily for testing liquid fuel-propelled rocket engines, manyrelated to the early Apollo space missions. In addition, the SSFL site was the location ofresearch, development, and testing of MX missile engines, water jet pumps, “Star Wars”lasers, liquid metal heat exchanger components, coal gasification and liquificationprocesses, and related technologies. In 1955, Atomics International (a division ofNorthAmerican Aviation) and DOE began developing and testing nuclear reactors on the site.Operations at SSFL have involved the use of organic solvents, hydrazine fuels, kerosene-based fuels, oxidizers, liquid metals, asbestos, polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB5),hydraulic oils, and various radionuclides (see Appendix C for a complete listing).

Atomic International (AT) merged with Rocketdyne in 1984 and Rocketdyne’s name waskept. In 1996, all nuclear operations ended; since that time the nuclear reactors andreactor sites have been undergoing decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) underthe oversight of DOE. Boeing and Rocketdyne merged in 1996. SSFL is now jointlyowned by Boeing and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), andis operated by the Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power Division of Boeing.

The SSFL site is divided into four administrative areas (I, TI, III, and IV) andundeveloped buffer properties to the northwest and south (Robinson, 1998; Ogden,1 998b).

• Area I consists of 671 acres owned by Boeing and 42 acres owned by NASA in thenortheast portion of the site. Area I houses administrative and laboratory facilitiesincluding the North American Kindleberger Atwood Lab (NAKA), the former Area IThermal Treatment Facility (TTF), also known as the open pit burning facility; andthree rocket engine test areas: the Bowl, the Canyon, and the Advanced PropulsionTest Facility (APTF) areas. The Bowl and Canyon test areas were phased out ofoperation in the late 1960s and 1970s.

• Area II consists of 410 acres at the north-central portion of the site. It is owned byNASA and operated by Rocketdyne. Area IT contains two formerly used rocket testfiring facilities (Coca, Delta) and two rocket test firing facilities (Alfa, Bravo), as wellas the NASA-associated Systems Test Laboratories (STL). Delta test areas werephased out of operation in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Coca test area was shutdown in May 1988.

12

• Area III consists of 114 acres at the northwest portion of the site and is owned andoperated by Rocketdyne. The Systems Test Laboratories—TV (STE-TV) and theEngineering Chemistry Lab (ECL) are located in Area III.

• Area IV consists of 290 acres owned by Boeing and operated by Boeing’sRocketdyne Division and 90 acres leased by the DOE. DOE and its contractorsoperated nuclear reactors, associated fuel facilities, and laboratories within this areafrom 1955 until 1988. Area IV is the location of the former Sodium ReactorExperiment complex (SRE) and the Rockwell International Hot Lab. Since 1988, thesite has maintained a program to monitor and clean up radiological contamination.

• The Buffer Areas consist of two undeveloped plots (175 and 1,140 acres) northwestand south of SSFL, respectively (Figure 1-2). Two National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) discharge outfalls and drainage channels are locatedwithin the southern boundary area (outfalls 00 1-002). The northern boundary waspurchased by Boeing from the adjoining Brandeis-Bardin Institute in 1997 (GRC,1999).

Chemical waste generated at the SSFL facility was treated and stored on site, including insurface impoundments (ponds). SSFL has had 28 of these ponds over the course of itshistory; they are designed to collect cooling and rinse water, storm water runoff, andaccidental spills (GRC, 1987). Eleven of the ponds were designated in 1977 as hazardouswaste facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976(GRC, 1987). Since 1977 only two of these eleven ponds were reportedly the onlyimpoundments that were part of the water reclamation system hat stored and treatedhazardous wastes on a routine basis: the Engineering Chemistry Lab (ECL) pond in AreaIII and the Laser Engineering Test Facility (LETF) pond in Area T (GRC, 1987). Thesetwo ponds were excavated in 1984 and the material was sent to a Class I disposal facility(Hargis, 1985). Active use of the other nine impoundments ceased in 1985, and thoseponds have been undergoing RCRA closure (GRC, 1987). Five impoundments are still inuse (R-1, Perimeter, Silvemale, R2-A, and R2-B ponds; Boeing, 2003).

In addition to surface impoundments, there are 17 known areas where waste materialswere stored or treated (Hargis, 1985). According to Groundwater Resources Consultants(GRC, 1987), many of these areas may have lacked proper containment facilities toprevent release of contaminants to the environment in the event of improper storage orspills throughout their operation. (Center for Environmental Risk Reduction, 2006)

First NASA Use of the SSFL Facilities - Tn 1962, the USAF contracted with NASA forjoint use of Plant Number 57 for a 20-year period. NASA contracted separately withRocketdyne to operate these facilities for NASA. For 12 years, the NASA facilities andthe USAF facilities contracts ran concurrently with Rocketdyne. Rocketdyne continued tooperate test facilities for the USAF while also operating them in support of supplycontracts for NASA. Rocketdyne continued to use TCE to clean the engines after testfirings.

NASA Acquisition of Area II - In November 1972, the USAF granted NASA a permit touse Plant Number 57 and Plant Number 64 to test the Space Shuttle Main Engine, withthe understanding that the USAF would eventually transfer titles to NASA. In June 1973,the USAF declared this property surplus and transferred it to the General ServicesAdministration for disposal. In November 1973, the General Services Administrationtransferred the property to NASA. From that point, Plant Number 57 and Plant Number64 became known as Area II. (NASA, 1998)

The Coca area consisted of four test stands for rocket engine testing using primarilypetroleum-based fuels (kerosene) and LOX as the oxidizer. The Coca area has beeninactive since 1988. Coca Test Stand No. 1 has been dismantled. The HydrogenCompressor Area consists of three buildings associated with the compression of gaseoushydrogen (GH2) for use during engine testing activities in the Coca area (CH2M HILL,2007).

The Storable Propellant Area (SPA) consists of six buildings that were used for storage ofdrums containing fuels and oxidizers. The SPA was divided into two areas designated forfuel storage and oxidizer storage. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

The Service Area is comprised of 13 buildings. The Service Area provides many differentoperations including maintenance, protective services, research and development (R&D)of various rocket engine components, final assembly for expendable launch vehicles, andR&D for lasers. Approximately half of the buildings in the Service Area are currentlyactive. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

3.2.2.2 Adjacent Land Use

The communities surrounding SSFL have changed since the area’s early industrializationin 1946. The area was sparsely populated before 1970. USGS maps (USGS, 1952, 1967)indicate that fewer than six buildings were present in the areas directly bordering SSFLbefore 1967, with approximate near-border population of 20 individuals. Development inthe area and population increased significantly since the establishment of SSFL. In 2000,the population within 1 mile of SSFL was about 6,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

Currently, there are residents who live directly adjacent to the eastern and southern siteboundaries. Two mobile home parks are located east of the site on Woolsey CanyonRoad. The residential areas closest to the facility are Bell Canyon to the south, LakesidePark and Dayton Canyon to the east, and Box Canyon and Woolsey Canyon to thenortheast. The nearest communities are Chatsworth (‘-‘3 miles east, population ~-‘67,000),Canoga Park (‘-‘5 miles southeast, population -~400,000), Simi Valley (~-‘3 miles north,population ‘--100,000), and Thousand Oaks (~-‘7 miles southwest, population‘—lOO,OOO).The neighboring lands to the north and west of SSFL are zonedrural/agricultural or agricultural. Lands to the south of the facility are zoned rural. To theeast, land has been designated as light agricultural.

14

3.3 Utilities

3.3.1 Water Supply

Water used at SSFL is supplied to the region by Calleguas Municipal Water District andprovided to the facility by the Ventura County Water Works District No. 17. Purchasedwater enters via a 100,000 gallon transfer tank located at the northeast boundary of AreaI. The main storage reservoir is a one million gallon tank and three 100,000-gallon tankslocated in Area II. A gravity fed distribution system serves all of SSFL from this source.(SAIC, 1994)

Backflow prevention devices for the freshwater distribution system are used to protect thedomestic water supply. Bottled water is provided at SSFL for drinking and other uses.

3.3.2 Wastewater

Historically, water used for industrial purposes was discharged to onsite ponds. Both theR2-A pond and the Perimeter Pond discharged to drainage channels which conveywastewater off-site through the Buffer Zone. Water was normally reclaimed and storedfor industrial uses, however, during periods of heavy rainfall, water was released from theR2-A Pond and Perimeter Pond to Bell Creek (Hargis, 1985). Discharges generated fromgroundwater extraction activities (after treatment to discharge standards) entered the BellCreek drainage located in the central portion of SSFL (CH2M HILL, 2007). There havebeen no industrial discharges since March, 2006 (NASA 2007).

A NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) regulates the surface water discharges from SSFL. There are 18 NPDESlocations throughout SSFL at which surface water discharges are monitored regularly.(CH2M HILL, 2007)

The Perimeter Pond discharges to Bell Creek from Discharge Point 001 located in theBuffer Zone, and R2-A discharges to Bell Creek from Discharge Point 002 in the BufferZone. (EPA, 1989) (DOE, 1989) Prior to the release, the pond wastewater quality isdetermined to ensure that all parameters are in compliance with the NPDES permitrequirements. (EPA, 1989)

The majority of surface water that is collected or drains from SSFL is intermittent and isconveyed offsite into one of four drainages (the Northwestern, Northern, Happy Valley,and Bell Creek drainages). It is estimated that more than 60 percent of the surface waterfrom SSFL is directed to the southern boundary through Bell Canyon and into BellCreek. The waters from Bell Creek discharge into the Los Angeles River. Waterdischarges from the southern portion of the site are monitored by NPDES Outfalls 1 and2. Surface waters on the eastern portion of SSFL drain through Dayton Canyon andDayton Creek. Dayton Creek later combines with Bell Creek downstream before joiningthe Los Angles River. The NPDES Happy Valley monitoring location monitors surfacewater discharges from this portion of the site. Surface water drainages from the

northwestern portion of the site drain into Meier Canyon, which later drains into ArroyoSimi. NPDES Outfalls 4,5,6, and 7 monitor surface water discharges from thenorthwestern portion of SSFL. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

Five surface water ponds are located in SSFL. These ponds are either themselves RCRAFacility Investigation (RFI) sites (R-1 Pond [SWMU 4.16], Perimeter Pond [SWMU4.17], R-2 Ponds [SWMU 5.26], and Silvernale Reservoir [SWMU 6.8]), or they occurwithin and RFI site (Coca Pond [SWIvIU 5.19]). The surface water ponds associated withArea II are briefly described below. A 300,000 gallon capacity reservoir called the CocaPond is located to the west-northwest of the Coca test stands. Discharges from thisperennial pond lead to the R-2A Pond. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

There are two surface water ponds that comprise the R-2 Ponds (R-2A with a 6 milliongallon capacity, and R-2B with a 500-gallon capacity). Surface water from the Coca andDelta test stands and treated groundwater enter the R-2A Pond. Surface drainage fromSilvernale Reservoir and the Burro Flats area of SSFL drains to R-2B Pond. A subsurfaceculvert allows water from R-2B to drain to R-2A. Discharges from R-2A Pond flow tothe Bell Canyon Drainage and NPDES Outfall 2. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

3.3.3 Solid Waste

Historically, waste discharges from the SSFL have been regulated since 1959. Wastedischarge requirements (WDRs) were issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB to regulatesewage and industrial waste discharge onsite (nonhazardous leach fields). There are nolonger any active leach fields at the SSFL, and the WDR permit was rescinded by theRWQCB in 1994. Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) are inactive (standby status) and allsanitary waste is disposed to the municipal sewer system. (CH2M HILL, 2007)

3.4 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous WasteManagement

3.4.1 Known Contamination Sites

The 42-acre portion of Area I that is NASA’s responsibility was the former U.S. AirForce Liquid Oxygen Manufacturing Plant #64 that produced liquid oxygen for enginetesting. The facility has been demolished. No other facilities are on the 42 NASA-owned acres in Area I. The major activities in Area II was rocket engine testing. Area IIcontains four test areas: Alfa, Bravo, Coca, Delta. Testing began at Alfa and Bravo in1953 and concluded in 2006. Coca was activated in 1956 with three test stands thatsupported the Atlas program and then the NASA Space Shuffle program through testingof the Space Shuttle Main Engine. Coca has been inactive since 1988. Delta wasactivated in 1957 to support the Thor, Jupiter, Lance, and J-2 engine testing programs.Testing ceased at Delta in 1970, and all Delta area test stands were dismantled in 1982.

SSFL is a RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Corrective Action Siteunder the jurisdiction of the California-EPA, Department of Toxic Substance Control(DTSC). NASA and the Cal-EPA DTSC are working together to remediate

16

contamination found in the soil, sediment, and groundwater. The media at SSFL aregrouped into 1) surficial media (soil, sediment, surface water, and near-surfacegroundwater) and 2) deep groundwater/bedrock.

Surficial contamination in soil, sediment, air, weathered bedrock, surface water and near-surface groundwater is the result of testing support facilities such as landfills, delugeponds, storage facilities, treatment systems, and underground tanks. The majorcontaminates found are TCE, dioxins, polychiorinated biphenyls, poly aromatichydrocarbons, metals, furans, and hydrocarbons. There are 15 corrective areas thatinclude 42 solid waste management units (SWMUs) and areas of concern (AOCs) onNASA-owned property at SSFL. Since 1990, NASA has investigated and performedactions at these SWMUS and AOCs. A number ofNASA units have been closed,including

• Building 231 PCB Storage Facility• HWSA Container Storage Area• Storage Propellant Area (SPA) Impoundments 1 and 2• Alfa/Bravo Skim Pond (ABSP) and Drainage Pipes• Delta Skim Pond and Drainage• Propellant Load Facility (PLF) Impoundment• Building 207 Diesel UST• UST across from Alfa/Bravo Fuel Farm (ABFF)

NASA has submitted an application for the renewal of their Post-Closure Permit toaddress follow-up monitoring for some of these closed units and continues to monitorthese units.

The deep groundwater/bedrock primary contaminants are TCE, cis- 1 ,2-dichlorethene andto lesser degrees, Freon-i 13, 1,4 dioxane, NDMA, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Thepresence of trichioroethene (TCE) in the groundwater is due to the engine cleaningprocedures. TCE was flushed through the engines to remove hydrocarbon deposits andvapors left in the engines by the kerosene fuel after engine testing or checkout to preventpremature ignition. TCE was also used to clean testing areas and tools. The TCE wasreleased through concrete spillways, to an unlined channel, and finally to an unlined skimpond andJor retention pond. The ponds drained into surface drainage and into Bell Creek.Staring in 1962, TCE was collected and was no longer released. NASA and the Cal-EPADTSC are working to characterize and monitor the groundwater. Groundwater samplesare taken and analyzed from over 400 wells, springs, and piezometers and computermodeling is being used to understand how the groundwater and contaminants move.

Some previous groundwater treatment systems have been closed. Area II groundwatertreatment systems permitted under the RCRA, Part B have been closed. Operations attwo sets of four air stripping towers at Bravo Test Area ceased in 2000, and operationsfor one ultraviolet/peroxidation unit at RD-09 area were put on standby in 2000. A newstate-wide system is under construction.

TABLE 3-2Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and Areas of Concern (AOCs) at SSFL

Site ID Site Name

SWMUs

4.5 LOX Plant Waste Oil Sump and Clarifier

4.6 LOX Plant Asbestos and Drum Disposal Area

5.1 Area II Landfill

5.2 ELV Final Assembly Building 206

5.5 Building 204 Former Waste Oil UST (UT-50)

5.6 Former Area II Incinerator Ash Pile

5.9 Alfa Test Area

5.10 Alfa Test Area Tanks

5.11 Alfa Skim Pond and Retention Pond

5.12 Alfa Bravo Skim Pond (ABSP)

5.13 Bravo Test Area

5.14 Bravo Test Stand Waste Tank

5.15 Bravo Skim Pond and Drainage

5.16 Storable Propellant Area Surface Impoundment-I (SPA-I) and Drainage

5.17 SPA Surface lmpoundment-2 (SPA-2) and Drainage

5.18 Coca Test Area

5.19 Coca Skim Pond and Drainage

5.20 Propellant Load Facility Waste Tank

5.21 PLF Ozonator Tank

5.23 Delta Test Area

5.24 Delta Skim Pond and Drainage

5.25 Purge Water Tank near Delta Treatment System

5.26 R-2A and R-2B Ponds and Drainage

AOCs

AOC Building 515 Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Area

AOC Storable Propellant Area (SPA)

AOC AlfalBravo Fuel Farm (ABFF) and Stormwater Basin

AOC Coca/Delta Fuel Farm (CDFF)

AOC Drainage Pipes under ABSP

18

TABLE 3-2Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and Areas of Concern (AOCs) at SSFL

Site ID Site Name

AOC Area II Service Area, Building 211 Leach Fields

AOC Alfa Control Center, Building 208 Leach Field

AOC Alfa Pretest, Building 212 Leach Field

AOC Bravo Recording Center, Building 213 Leach Field

AOC Bravo Pretest, Building 217 Leach Field

AOC Coca Pretest, Building 222 Leach Field

AOC Coca Upper Pretest, Building 234 Leach Field

AOC Coca Control Center, Building 218 Leach Field

AOC Delta Control Center, Building 224 Leach Field

AOC Delta Pretest, Building 223 Leach Field

AOC Building 207 Diesel UST (UT-53)

AOC UST across from Alfa/Bravo Fuel Farm (ABFF) (UT-52)

AOC Building 206 Diesel UST (UT-51)

AQC Two Underground Tanks at Plant Services (UT-48 and UT-49)

3.4.2 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

The Boeing Company operates the NASA-owned areas of Santa Susana Field Laboratoryand conducts the hazardous materials and waste management. The Boeing Company isresponsible for the clean up of spills, pick up of drums of wastes from around the site, on-site storage of waste, and arrangement for transportation of waste for proper disposal.Hazardous wastes are stored at SSFL in a joint NASA, Boeing, and DOE ninety-daystorage area. A contractor to the Boeing Company removes waste from SSFL for properdisposal.

All USTs at SSFL were closed in 1996. The facility does not have any active USTs onsiteat this time (NASA, 2007a).

Within Area II of SSFL, there are approximately nine ASTs that contain hazardoussubstances. The tanks are used for storage, chemical supply, and petroleum storage. Thetanks’ use and emergency spill response are included in SSFL’s Spill Response Plan(NASA, 2007a).

NASA has had an active Pollution Prevention (P2) program at SSFL since the late1980’s. The program was initiated to reduce the use of hazardous materials andassociated wastes generated at SSFL (NASA, 2007a).

9

3.4.3 Asbestos, Lead, and PCB’s

Buildings at SSFL were constructed when materials such as asbestos insulation, lead-based paint, and light fixtures with PCB-containing ballasts were used. Several buildingsat SSFL contain asbestos. If buildings require modification, demolition or other activitiesthat may disturb asbestos the projects are evaluated as they occur, and removal anddisposal are performed per the applicable state and federal requirements (NASA, 2007a).The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District regulates asbestos removal projects.

SSFL has implemented a program to replace or retrofill PCB-transformers with non-PCBtransformers over time and to manage PCB-related wastes at SSFL. Currently, SSFL hasno PCB-containing transformers remaining thatcontain above 50-ppm PCBs.

An LBP survey at SSFL positively identified LBP at numerous buildings at SSFL(NASA, 2007u).

3.5 Soils

The SSFL soils are primarily Quaternary alluvium. The soil depth varies from a few feetto approximately 20 feet. Erosion of the surrounding geological formations created theunconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, which compose the Quaternary alluvium. The thicklayer of bedrock underlying most of SSFL is the Chatsworth Formation. Massive, cliff-forming sandstone beds that are at least 6,000 feet thick characterize the Chatsworth. Theexposures of Quaternary alluvium and the Chatsworth Formation compose the Simi Hillsof SSFL. (ICF, 1993)

3.6 Water Resources

3.6.1 Surface Water

Surface water from the SSFL drains primarily toward the south into Bell Creek and theneastward to the Los Angeles River with its confluence located in the San FernandoValley. Surface water in the very north portion of the SSFL drains via various drainagesinto Meier and Black Canyons, which lead to the Arroyo Simi located in Simi Valley(DOE 2007).

Two parallel and interconnected pond and drainage systems comprise the SSFLwatershed. Twenty-four ponds were at one time included in this system, however severalof these ponds have been closed and filled. Many of the ponds and drainages are manmade features used to store water for the rocket testing facilities. (Hargis, 1985) Thissystem makes up the site-wide water reclamation system (EPA, 1989)

A pond and channel system drains a large portion of Area I. The water reclamationsystem is designed to recycle settled water from the R- 1 Reservoir (R- 1). As the supplyfor water exceeds the demand, R-1 overflows to the Perimeter Pond. (SAIC, 1994)

20

The pond and channel system for Areas II, III, and IV consists of two retention ponds, theR-2A and R-2B in Area II and the Silvemale Reservoir in Area III. (SAIC, 1994)

Past surface water contamination occurred in Areas I, II, and III due to TCE engineflushing operations in the 1950s and 1960s. Waste TCE was discharged directly tosurface impoundments (SWMUs 4.14, 4.15, 5.11, 5.12, 5.15, 5.19, 5.24, 6.6, and 6.7) thatwere part of the SSFL surface water reclamation system. It is not known if any of thiscontamination migrated off-site through the Bell Creek drainage. Currently, the SSFLwater reclamation system discharge is regulated by an NPDES permit granted in the late1970s. (EAE, 1989) Table 3-3 gives NPDES permit requirements for monitoring of thedischarge ponds prior to any batch discharge to off-site for the following constituents:

Table 3-3 NPDES Maximum Discharge Limitations

Constituents Concentrations (mg/L) Quantity* (lbs/day)

Total Dissolved Solids 950 1,267,680

BOD5@20°C 30 40,035

Oil and Grease 15 20,020

Chloride 150 200,160

Sulfate 300 400,320

Fluoride 1.0 1,340

Boron 1.0 1,340

Surfactants (as MBAS) 0.5 667

Residual Chlorine 0.1

*Based on a total waste flow of] 60 million pgd (CR WGCB)

In 1987, Rockwell sampled surface runoff water that drains north of the facility and is notpart of the water reclamation system. The sample results were compared to the maximumcontaminants levels (MCLs) for drinking water, although the runoff from the site is notused for drinking water purposes. The MCL for arsenic was exceeded at several samplelocations. Methylene chloride levels exceeded the DHS action level of 40 ji.g/L in twosamples. Although samples indicated contaminated surface water runoff exists in thenorth part of the SSFL, it is not known if these contaminants were released to any off-sitesurface water bodies. The drainages north of the facility are ephemeral channels;

21

therefore, a potential exists for surface water runoff to have percolated into the soil beforereaching a surface water body or to have been discharged into the channels. (EAE, 1989)

3.6.2 Groundwater

Two groundwater systems exist at SSFL: 1) a shallow groundwater system in the surficialalluvium and the underlying zones of weathered sandstones and siltstones, and 2) adeeper groundwater system in the fractured Chatsworth Formation. Surface runoff maybe stored and transmitted from the shallow groundwater system to the underlyingChatsworth Formation. (GRC, 1986)

The shallow zone is composed of unconsolidated sand, silt and clay eroded from thesurrounding formations and the underlying weathered in-place portion of the ChatsworthFormation. The shallow zone is discontinuous and subject to seasonal variationsthroughout the SSFL. It is saturated along ephemeral channels and in the southern part ofBurro Flats. The saturated portion of the shallow zone may be as thick as 10 feet at SSFL.Shallow zone water level data indicates that the piezometric surface mimics thetopographic surface. Depth to water has ranged from 2 feet to a maximum of 35 feet. Thisvariation is season and location dependent. In general, water level highs occur in latewinter and dearly spring. Groundwater moves laterally and downward in the shallowzone.

The shallow zone aquifer appears to be separate and distinct from the ChatsworthAquifer; however, water levels and water quality data from some sections of SSFLindicate there may be a hydraulic connection between the two systems. (Hargis, 1985)

The Chatsworth Formation system is primarily a fracture controlled aquifer composed ofbedded sandstone with interbeds of siltstones and claystone. The Chatsworth is highlyfractured in the SSFL area. (The California Department of Health Services (DHS)believes that the formation might not be highly fractured. (EPA, 1990) Aquifer testsindicate highly varying degrees of permeability of the Chatsworth Formation. This maybe attributed to the fractured nature of the Chatsworth. The estimated ranges orpermeabilities are from approximately 102 gallons per day per square foot (gpd!ft2) toapproximately ~ gpdlft . (Hargis, 1985)

Current water level contours of the Chatsworth system indicate that groundwater in thecentral and northeast portion of the site appears to be migrating toward the site’s pumpingcone of depression. This cone of depression has been maintained in the northeast quarterof the facility by the pumping of water supply wells since the late 1 950s. In thenorthwestern section of the site, water level data suggests the presence of a northeast tosouthwest groundwater divide accompanied by a northwesterly groundwater flowcomponent. A southerly component of groundwater flow is indicated by water levelcontours in the southwest portion of the site. (Hargis, 1985)

Groundwater pumpage has had a significant impact on water levels and groundwatermovement at the site. Vertical groundwater movement may be induced by prolongedpumping with a consequent reduction in hydraulic head. In fractured systems such as the

22

Chatsworth, this effect may be quite dramatic. In 1988, the pumping from extraction wellWS-9A induced 30 feet of drawdown in an observation well 1,600 feet away. (GRC,1989)

Depth to groundwater is seasonally variable in the Chatsworth system. In general, highwater levels occur during winter and spring months and low water levels occur insummer and fall. (GRC, 1989)

The most widespread and prevalent groundwater chemical contaminants at the site areVOCs. TCE and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE) are the most frequentlydetected contaminants in groundwater samples. Sources for the VOCs are widelydistributed throughout the site and include the engine and rocket testing areas, pavementwashdown areas, laboratory solvent use areas, surface impoundments, spills, cleaningoperations, and tanks used for the storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.Groundwater investigations indicate extensive VOC contamination in groundwaterunderlying these areas. (EAE, 1989)

Rockwell initiated a hydrogeological study of the Alfa/Bravo Area in 1984. As part ofthat study, existing water supply wells were sampled. TCE and trans-i ,2-DCE weredetected in the water supply well samples. The groundwater contamination wasinvestigated further, along with the probable sources. Surface impoundments were usedfor spill containment, and hazardous waste storage and treatment were determined to bethe likely sources of VOC contamination. (SAIC, 1994)

SSFL’s groundwater monitoring system included approximately 163 wells and springs ofwhich 147 are on-site wells. These wells were constructed as part of the groundwatercontamination investigation that followed the discovery of VOC contamination in watersupply wells. Rockwell constructed seven groundwater treatment systems to remediateVOC contaminated groundwater. Five of the treatment systems are dual air strippingtowers with vapor phase carbon treatment, one is an ultravioletlhydrogen peroxide(UV/H202) system, and one is a four tower air stripping system. (DHS, 1990) Thesystems are connected to extraction wells to treat pumped, contaminated groundwater.Each system is designed to reduce the organic contaminants in the pumped groundwaterto below the DHS action levels. Treated groundwater is discharged to the site-wide waterreclamation system. (EPA, 1989)

On- and off-site wells have shown low concentrations of toluene and other organiccompounds. (EPA, 1989) These wells are not used as a source of drinking water but forother purposes, such as irrigation.

Rockwell believes that the historical pumpage of groundwater in the northeast section ofthe facility has created a large cone of depression that may have prevented the migrationof contaminants off-site. However, the movement of groundwater and contaminants in ahighly fractured system is very difficult to predict. (GRC, 1989) Additional placementand monitoring of off-site wells will be necessary to confirm Rockwell’s theory.

23

3.6.3 Floodplains

The site topography, natural drainage and climate minimize any threat of contaminantreleases to off-site due to flooding at the site. None of the SSFL facilities are located inthe floodplain and all active areas are well drained to control stormwater runoff. Surfacewater runoff from major storm events is directed to the Perimeter Pond and the R2-APond with the opening of bypass culverts. (EPA, 1989)

3.7 Biological Resources

3.7.1 HabitatsNegetation

The undeveloped areas within the SSFL site, both in open space and in the natural areassurrounding the developed site areas, consist of a large area of diverse habitats, primarilycharacterized as chaparral/oak woodland. This diversity is reflected in a wide variety ofplants and animals at the site. The habitat and species diversity associated with the SSFLproperty, the physical attributes of the facility, and its geographic location make the areaa potentially important route for effective movement of species. The open space at thesite may play an important role as a habitat linkage between the Santa Susana Mountains,the Simi Hills, and possibly the Santa Monica Mountains. (Ogden, 2000)

Sixteen different vegetation habitat types are found at the SSFL including freshwatermarsh, open water, unvegetated drainage channels, coast live oak woodland, southerncoast live oak riparian forest, southern willow scrub, mulefat scrub, baccharis scrub,Venturan coastal sage scrub, chaparral, native grassland, nonnative grassland, ruderal,rock outcrop, eucalyptus woodland, and developed (Figure 3-1). Rock outcrops occurthroughout SSFL and may be found in any of the vegetation types (Montgomery WatsonHarza [MWHJ, 2004).

3.7.2 Wildlife

Wildlife surveys performed at SSFL in the RCRA Facility Investigation Program Report,Surficial Media Operable Unit, SSFL, July 2004 (MWH, 2004) provide a basis forwildlife descriptions for SSFL. The wildlife surveys identified 13 mammal speciesincluding, bobcat (Lynx rufus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Sixty-nine birdspecies have been identified at SSFL. The most frequently observed birds are scrub jay(Aphelocoma cal~fornica), yellow rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), turkey vulture(Cathartes aura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), northern flicker (Colaptesauratus), California quail (Callipepla cal~fornica), red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Raptors found on SSFL include thesharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailedhawk (Buteojamaicensis), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Ten reptile speciesand 3 amphibian species have been observed on SSFL. Western whiptail (Aspidoscelistigris), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), California slender salamander(Batrachoseps attenuatus), Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla), and California toad (Bufoboreas halophilus) are among the reptiles and amphibians found on SSFL (MHW, 2004).

24

Two fish species have been noted on SSFL including catfish and goldfish (MWH, 2004).

Figure 3-2 Vegetation Habitats on SSFL

C).

C)—”-.‘S

Do

~o.o)wL.conIaeoDcwoC)om.e.tacwOt~*MC)DLtOA2TlS.têMWOC)lA’CcS.OOO.OC

C cos~L Co ,oamr’Sfn c_tncccrL.aaccC)C)oc COW

C COLTL~oC)x W00000. ROWC)tC CCoC)C) XVo~WCMA tiEo ~‘SSCOTC~ UML~ tWit

o= %CV&f SACttIJE,V 5).

ONiEtMTNDGAASUi5) 505.0OSOT0C)Wt~ICDCO.PS

0.eDcECnoV5005 OTOCOP DO

crj,zaw.v0rA mcNo

0000e5001_owxas,o-DO,

0500TnWt.aCx&DowtOsour.cmcwI._CWSXVSaLUCTSCNJS 002W)cJiEtnfl,I05TEOO50JJE.YSrfl CCXV= JXVPNIOCWDDDNTLOCDYTX CC

Csmcraot004rA.2A3. DONS 5-OSCsteTsc.COArA_DAOI ttN.t ROOD)

050Ts&’tcO*rA_,AOCOC... ROSS~softacSc0..rA.ooe,Cms =

Cv corn CorD RAGS OtNocCoDwi, .0.,,ERNTa,cO*n.SAXOCaCWCWL.OWt.

LZ]%o.T.aOScc.CrA.,AoeSC50tt.Cn,.O~c,*,C

3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

No federally listed wildlife species occur on SSFL.Califomia state wildlife species ofconcern found on SSFL include San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus caflfornicusmelanotis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), southern California rufous-crownedsparrow (Aimophila rujIceps canescens), two striped garter snake (Thamnophishammondii), and Coast horned lizard (Phiynosoma coronatum) (CDFG, 2004).

Four sensitive plant species have been documented on SSFL. Braunton’s milk vetch(Astragalus brauntonii) is a federally endangered plant that is present in the far westernportions of SSFL(CNPS), 2007; MWH, 2004). Santa Susana tarplant (Hemizoniaminthornii) is a California state rare plant that can be found on rocky outcrops throughoutthe facility (CNPS, 2007; MWH, 2004). California Black walnut and Mariposa lily havealso been documented at SSFL.

.0.0

OX - ~~~•2ti2~0WIJODEVEL PEE L~ —_ . tt0- - - - DCC

o-’~’ -.. ~ r ~ “AJDEA I S— go — —

- .C,E’. - D~t. CC

4~ ~ — - 0X ~-

O~. .q,_ ..*CoE Oti .,~. 2’~~~ ro~L~ ‘-~ o- .0

~iF’: :;~:~~~‘CoV~~ ~‘~‘~/ = ~ 1-

Q ~_?~;4 ~ RVOSC

Co -= 4 DO

- 0.0

WmcE’~ELcWEDLMD —

I

25

3.8 Cultural Resources

Federal agencies are required to protect and preserve cultural resources in cooperationwith state and local governments under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, Public Law (P.L.) 95—5 15). This reportaddresses only the cultural resources found within the boundaries of the NASA-ownedproperty of SSFL.

SSFL has been active since 1947 and has included the research, development, and testingof liquid-propelled rocket engines and associated components (pumps, valves, etc.) Itconsists of 2,850 acres and is divided into four areas (Areas Ito IV) and a Buffer Zone.The Air Force was deeded the land in 1958 and was 410 acres in Area II and a 42-acreportion of Area I. transferred to NASA in 1973.

3.8.1 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources

Seventeen archaeological sites (56-000151, 56-000152, 56-000153, 56-000154, 56-000155, 56-000156, 56-000157, 56-000158, 56-000159, 56-000160, 56-000161, 56-000764, 56-001065, 56-001066, 56-001067, 56-001068, and 56-001072) have beenidentified within SSFL Area II. One site (56-00 1072) has been determined to be eligiblefor the NRHP. Additionally, there are 16 sites that have been clustered into a single site(56-000151, 56-000152, 56-000153, 56-000154, 56-000155, 56-000156, 56-000157, 56-000158, 56-000159, 56-000160, 56-000161, 56-000165, 56-001066, 56-001067, 56-00 1067, and 56-00 1068). This cluster lies within the southwestern corner ofNASA AreaII and extends to the southeast into Boeing’s undeveloped land (Bard, 2007:2).

Traditional Cultural Resources. The Burro Flats Painted Cave is listed on the NRHP,as well as on the California Register of Historical Places (2006). The period ofsignificance of the cave is believed to be 1000 to 1499. The exact location of and accessto the cave are highly restricted (Bard, 2007:3).

3.8.2 Historic Buildings and Structures

SSFL currently contains 109 individual buildings and structures were evaluated forhistoric potential in a historical assessment of SSFL in August, 2007. No buildings datefrom before World War II. Buildings and structures at SSFL were evaluated for eligiblefor NRHP listing based on association with key missions at SSFL, association withleading rocket engine engineering firms of the post WWII years, and association with theimportant professional contributions of particular scientists and engineers recruited to theRedstone Arsenal in the early and middle 1950s. TBD properties were interpreted asbeing eligible for the NRHP, TBD were suggested for reconsideration ofNRHPeligibility in 10 years, and TBD buildings had insufficient information for NRHPassessment. The remaining buildings on SSFL were evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP(REF pending results of ongoing historic survey).

26

3.9 Air Quality

3.9.1 Region of Influence

For the air quality analysis, the ROT for project operational activities is the existingairshed surrounding SSFL. For regulatory purposes, project emissions would becompared to emissions generated in Ventura County.

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting

SSFL currently has a Title V Permit (#0023 2), issued by the Ventura County AirPollution Control District. The sources covered by this permit are listed in Table 3-(NASA, 2006c). SSFL is located in Ventura County, which is classified as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (EPA, 2007u). Therefore, SSFL follows themore stringent NSR program, and must evaluate all new projects under the GeneralConformity rule. SSFL is in attainment for all other NAAQS (NASA, 2006c). SSFL isalso classified as nonattainment under the state ozone, PM-2.5, and PM-io standards(http:/Iwww.arb.ca.gov/desig/admladm.htm).

3.9.3 Regional Climate

The average warmest month at SSFL is August, with an average high temperature of96°F and an average low temperature of 5 8°F. The highest recorded temperature was116°F in 1985. The average coolest month is December, with an average hightemperature of 69°F and an average low temperature of 38°F. The lowest recordedtemperature was 18°F in 1989 (TWC, 2007d). The maximum average precipitationoccurs in February, with a monthly average of 4.40 inches. The minimum averageprecipitation occurs in July, with a monthly average of 0.01 inch (TWC, 2007d).

27

3.9.4 Emission Sources

Table 3-4 lists the permitted emission sources (NASA, 2007u) for SSFL.

Table 3-4 Title V Air Permits for SSFLPermit Scope Permit Effective Date

NumberRocket Engine and Component Assembly 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Operations

Alpha Test AreaBravo Test AreaAdvanced Propulsion Test Area

Systems Test Laboratory 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2007Hypergol Facility 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2007Rocket Engine and Component Assembly 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2007OperationsRemote Reservoir Cold Cleaners 00232 July 1, 2007 — June 30, 2007Cold Cleaners 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Solvent Cleaning Operations 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Surface Coating Operations (Spray Booth) 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Adhesive and Sealant Operations 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Portable Diesel Engines 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Emergency Diesel Engines 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Groundwater and Remediation Operations 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Gasoline Dispensing Facility 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Boilers and Heaters 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007Solvent Wipe Cleaning Operations 00232 July 1, 2006 — June 30, 2007

Note: Ref. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 2006.

3.10 Health and Safety

The discussion of human health and safety includes both workers (NASA and othergovernment personnel, and contractor personnel) and the general public. Safety issuesinclude injuries that may result from one-time accidents. Health issues result fromactivities wherein people may be affected over a long period of time rather thanimmediately. The affected environment for health and safety includes those areas thatpotentially could be affected by the proposed activities. This discussion includes existinghazards such as emergency preparedness and response, explosion and fire hazards, andother Center-specific hazards. In addition, existing safety procedures are described.Issues related to the use of hazardous and generation of hazardous materials and wasteare addressed under the hazardous materials and hazardous waste subsection of this EA.

28

3.10.1 Affected Environment

The SSFL Service Area provides many different operations including maintenance,protective services, R&D of various rocket engine components, final assembly for ELVs,and R&D for lasers. A buffer zone surrounds SSFL that protects the surroundingcommunities from accidents that might occur at SSFL. The following subsections outlineSSFL’s programs for protecting the health and safety of the employees at SSFL and thepublic.

Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials are used to conduct maintenance, R&D, andassembly operations at SSFL. The hazardous materials used and hazardous wastesgenerated are as discussed in detail in Section 3.3.2. The degree of exposure to hazardousmaterials is minimized by the implementation of work practices and control technologies,which include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Controlled use and restricted access work areas and associated SOPs• Ventilated storage areas and work areas for certain hazardous materials• Regular monitoring to ensure that exposure levels do not exceed the OSHA standardthresholds.

The implementation of these work practices and control technologies minimizes exposureto hazardous materials. Risks associated with hazardous materials are managed underNPD 1820.1B.

Several SSFL buildings contain asbestos. Construction projects that involve asbestosremoval are evaluated as they occur, and removal and disposal are performed per 29 CFR1910.1001, OSHA’s standard for the protection of employees from asbestos exposure.

Hazardous Materials. Transportation Safety Hazardous materials such as fuels,chemicals, and hazardous waste are transported in accordance with the DOT regulationsfor interstate shipment of hazardous substances (49 CFR 100 through 199).

Explosions and Fire Hazards. Using certain hazardous materials, including fuels, in SSPoperations at SSFL presents a risk of explosions and fire hazards. Fire protection at SSFLis provided by Ventura County via 911.

Emergency Preparedness and Response. Emergency medical services at S SFL areprovided by Ventura County via 911.

29

4. References

Boeing 2000 Boeing 2000. Memorandumfrom Boeing to DTSC. PotableWater Use in Emergency Eye Wash Stations andEmergency Showers, Santa Susana Field Laboratory.Ventura County, California. June 29, 2000.

Boeing 2003 Boeing 1990-2003. National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) Permitfor the BoeingCompany, SSFL. Electronic Sample Data Set. AnnualReports, Permit # CA0001309.

CH2M HILL 2006a CH2M HILL, 2006. Telecommunication between DavidChung (Boeing) and Dave Golles (CH2M Hill) regardingpotable water usage at SSFL. October 20, 2006.

CH2M HILL 2006b CH2M HILL, 2006. SSFL, Area II, Historical ResearchProject, Site Condition Summary Meeting PowerPointFiles (Draft). February 2006.

CH2M HILL 2007 CH2M HILL. Space Shuttle Program Site EnvironmentalSummaries. Space Shuttle Program. February 2007.

CRWQCB CRWQCB. NPDES No. CA0001309, Order No. 84-85.Waste Discharge Requirements for Rockwell InternationalCorporation, Rocketdyne Division, Santa Susana FieldLaboratory.

DHS 1990 DHS 1990. Toxic Substances Control Program;Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation ofthe Santa Susana Field Laboratory — Areas I & III.Rockwell International Special Report 3LA-90-3.California Department of Health Services. December 31,1990.

DOE 1989 DOE 1989. Environmental Survey Preliminary Report,U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental, Safety, andHealth Office of Environmental Audit. DOE Activities atSanta Susana Field Laboratories, February 1989.

30

DOE 2003 Department of Energy, 2007. Environmental Assessmentfor the Cleanup and Closure ofthe TechnologyEngineering Center. Department of Energy, March 2003.

DOE 2007 Department of Energy, 2007. Department of EnergyClosure Project, http ://www.etec.energy. gov/ReadingRoomlconsent-order.html, August 2007.

DTSC 2007 DTSC, 2007 Department of Toxic Substances ControlSanta Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, VenturaCounty, Cal~fornia Consent Orderfor Corrective Action,Docket No. P3-07-08-003. August 16, 2007.

EAE 1989 EAE, 1989. Summary Review of PreliminaryAssessments/Site Inspections of Santa Susana FieldLaboratory. Prepared for Rockwell InternationalCorporation, Rocketdyne Division. Ecology andEnvironment, Inc. July 19, 1989.

EPA 1989 EPA 1989. Site Report from U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, to Congressman Elton Gallegly. Santa SusanaField Laboratory, July 31, 1989.

EPA 1990 EPA, 1990. Letter from Scott Simpson, to Karen Schwinn,EPA. Regarding clarifications on SWMUs. Comments onDraft Report and Letters from J. T. Crone (RockwellInternational Corporation) to Carmen Santos, EPA,December 11, 1990, regarding comments on Draft EPAReport.

GRC 1986 GRC, 1986. Phase II Groundwater Investigation fromGroundwater Resources Consultants, to RockwellInternational Corporation, Rocketdyne Division. October29, 1986.

GRC 1987 GRC, 198 . Hydrogeologic Assessment Report, SSFL,Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Div. GroundwaterResource Consultants, Tucson, AZ, November 30, 1987.

GRC 1989 GRC, 1989. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report,Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 1989. Prepared forRockwell International Corporation, Rocketdyne Division,

31

Ventura County, CA by Groundwater ResourceConsultants, Tucson AZ, July 17, 1989.

GRC 1999 GRC, 1999. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report,Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 1998. 5 Volumes PlusAppendices. Prepared for Boeing North American, Inc.,Ventura County, CA, by Groundwater ResourceConsultants, Tucson AZ, February 24, 1999.

Hargis 1985 Hargis and Associates, 1985. Phase linvestigation oftheHydrogeologic Conditions at SSFL, Ventura Co., CA,February 22, 1985.

ICF 1993 ICF Kaiser Engineers, 1993. Current Conditions Reportand Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan Areas Iand II Santa Susana Field Laboratory Ventura County,California Part] — Current Conditions Report Volume I,Available at:http://www.rocketdynewatch.org/index.php/docarchive/,October 1993.

Lafflam 1988 S. R. Lafflam, 1988. Letter from S. R. Lafflam, RockwellInternational Corporation, Rocketdyne Division, to Mrs.Susan Romero, Department of Health Services. SurfaceImpoundment Closure Plans. April 4, 1988.

MWH 2004 Montgomery, Watson, Harza, 2004. RCRA FacilityInvestigation Program Report Surficial Media OperableUnit, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County,California Volume 1. July 2004

NASA 1998 National Aeronatuics and Space Administration,Headquarters, Office of Inspector General 1998. CostSharingfor Santa Susana Field Laboratory CleanupActivities. National Aeronatuics and Space Administration,Washington D.C., August 18, 1998.

NASA 2007 NASA/MSFC. November 1, 2007. Telecommunicationsbetween Donna L. Holland (NASA) and Authur Lenox(Boeing) regarding water supply and wastewater dischargeat SSFL.

32

NASA 2007a NASA/MSFC. November 1, 2007. Email communicationbetween Amy Keith (NASA) and Authur Lenox (Boeing)regarding Hazardous Materials and Hazardous WasteManagement at SSFL.

Ogden 1998b Ogden Inc., 1998b. SSFL RCRA Facility InvestigationBackground Data in the Standardized Risk AssessmentMethodology, Ogden Environmental and Energy ServicesCo., Inc. San Diego, CA, 1998.

Robinson 1998 Robinson, K.S., ed., 1998. Rocketdyne Propulsion andPower DOE Operations Annual Site Environmental Report,1997. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, OaklandOperations Office, by Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power,November 23, 1998.

SAIC 1994 SAIC 1994. Final RCRA Facility Assessment Report forRockwell Internal Corporation Rocketdyne Division SantaSusana Field Laboratory Ventura County, California. May1994

US Census Bureau 2000 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, George C.Marshall. Space Flight Center November 2003. HistoricalAssessment ofthe Marshall Space Flight Center.

USGS 1952 United States Geological Survey 1952. Calabasas Quadrangle,California. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) Map. U.S.Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

USGS 1967 United States Geological Survey 1967. Calabasas Quadrangle,California. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic,) Map. U.S.Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

33